|
From: Petar J. <mip...@gm...> - 2012-10-04 17:36:21
|
Rather trivial question/dilemma: In exp-sgcheck\tests\is_arch_supported can we change: case `uname -i` in ppc*|arm*|s390x|mips*) exit 1;; *) exit 0;; esac to either a) case `uname -m` in ppc*|arm*|s390x|mips*) exit 1;; *) exit 0;; esac or b) case `uname -i` in ppc*|arm*|s390x|mips*|unknown) exit 1;; *) exit 0;; esac since on some platforms such as MIPS, "uname -i" will return "unknown". Regards, Petar |
|
From: Florian K. <br...@ac...> - 2012-10-04 23:00:37
|
On 10/04/2012 01:36 PM, Petar Jovanovic wrote: > Rather trivial question/dilemma: > > In exp-sgcheck\tests\is_arch_supported > > can we change: > > case `uname -i` in > ppc*|arm*|s390x|mips*) exit 1;; > *) exit 0;; > esac > > to either > > a) > > case `uname -m` in > ppc*|arm*|s390x|mips*) exit 1;; > *) exit 0;; > esac > (a) is fine with me. I don't like (b). We could also invert the test and check for those archs that are supported.. Florian > > or b) > > case `uname -i` in > ppc*|arm*|s390x|mips*|unknown) exit 1;; > *) exit 0;; > esac > > since on some platforms such as MIPS, "uname -i" will return "unknown". > > Regards, > Petar |
|
From: Petar J. <mip...@gm...> - 2012-10-04 23:13:35
|
a) looks better to me too. I can invert the check, but somebody needs to tell me all expected values. Petar On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Florian Krohm <br...@ac...> wrote: > On 10/04/2012 01:36 PM, Petar Jovanovic wrote: >> Rather trivial question/dilemma: >> >> In exp-sgcheck\tests\is_arch_supported >> >> can we change: >> >> case `uname -i` in >> ppc*|arm*|s390x|mips*) exit 1;; >> *) exit 0;; >> esac >> >> to either >> >> a) >> >> case `uname -m` in >> ppc*|arm*|s390x|mips*) exit 1;; >> *) exit 0;; >> esac >> > > (a) is fine with me. I don't like (b). > We could also invert the test and check for those archs that are > supported.. > > Florian > >> >> or b) >> >> case `uname -i` in >> ppc*|arm*|s390x|mips*|unknown) exit 1;; >> *) exit 0;; >> esac >> >> since on some platforms such as MIPS, "uname -i" will return "unknown". >> >> Regards, >> Petar > |
|
From: Florian K. <br...@ac...> - 2012-10-04 23:29:17
|
On 10/04/2012 07:13 PM, Petar Jovanovic wrote: > a) looks better to me too. > > I can invert the check, but somebody needs to tell me all expected values. > I'd say, just run with (a).. I don't know the expected values either. Florian |